Reader
An End to Discord · Daniel Williams

An End to Discord, Introduction · Chapter 7

CHAP. VII.

An Enquiry into what Difference seems to remain concerning the Satisfaction of Christ, and Iustification of a Sinner. And this Difference reduced below any Cause of Discord.

I Think both sides are acquitted from all dangerous Errors concerning the Satisfaction of Christ, and Justification of a Sinner; nor can I doubt but the impartial Reader must apprehend the remaining Difference doth not lie in Opinions about these Doctrines themselves, but in accommodating some words in opposition to other Errors which either Side have more especially applied their Minds to confute, unless he should also ascribe it to a Zeal for sundry received Phrases on the one part, and an apprehension in the other part, that more accuracy is become needful since those Phrases were received.

1. In both these Doctrines the visible Spring of what Difference remains is a different Notion of Christ's Suretiship. For by this the word Imputation, as used in both these Doctrines, is governed, viz. how our Sins were imputed to Christ when he satisfied, and how Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us when we are justified; both which depend upon the various Conceptions of the Suretiship of Christ, and the manner of his representing us, which I will begin with. One Side thinks him a mediating Surety, and distinguishing both as to the matter engaged, and Instrument wherein he voluntarily engaged himself, as also the respect he had to us therein.

1. In the Covenant of Redemption they consider Christ agreeing with his Father the Terms of Satisfaction to Justice, and Impetration of Life for Sinners, and obliging himself to assume our Nature, and therein perfectly to obey the Law, die an accursed Death, with whatever was equivalent to what by the Covenant of Works our Sins deserved. Here they think Christ did not covenant strictly in our stead, or as our Proxy, tho he covenanted to die in our stead, even strictly so: He transacted as a free Interposer tho for our Salvation; we were no federating Party, tho we were the Persons whose Salvation was his promised Reward: And therefore we have more reason, since we are become his Members, to say we intercede in Christ now, than to say that we covenanted in Christ then. Finally, they account his Act of engaging so peculiar to himself, that his non-performance of what he engaged (which was impossible) had not made us more guilty, tho it would have left us miserable for our own Sins, there being no other way to redeem us.

2. They find Christ called a Surety in the Gospel-Covenant made with fallen Man, Heb. 7. 22. and no where else. This Covenant supposeth the former, yea supposeth Christ's having executed his Engagements by the Covenant of Redemption to make Satisfaction to Justice (i. e. it was at first accepted as if executed) for this Covenant with Man doth not adjust the terms of Redemption, but the way of conveying the Effects of that Redemption, and is called the Testament of our Lord Jesus, whereby he bequeaths the Blessings he acquired by his atoning Death. In this Covenant Christ is such a Surety, as not only assures us all will be performed which is promised to us on God's part, but that undertakes to bring in the Elect, and for the Perseverance of Believers unto eternal Life, by his exerting that Power and Authority he hath received. But here also they apprehend Christ a distinct federating Party: A Mediator treating and obliging himself to make the Covenant stand sure, and effect the Ends it was designed for: but he binds not himself to believe, repent, or persevere for us; but that we shall repent, believe and persevere; nor doth his Engagement that we should do so, prevent our personal Engagement by Covenant to do it our selves, tho in his Strength. Now our Act of engaging is not his engaging Act, but an Effect of it; nor is our repenting his repenting Act, but the Effect of his engaged Assistance; nor is that Assistance of his reckoned to be legally our assisting our selves; nor can we say that we covenanted in Christ to bring in the Elect, or that Believers shall persevere: By which, with other Reasons, we are induced to think, that in covenanting he transacts still as Mediator; but he obliging himself to these great Performances, in order to our doing what we are personally obliged to do, and our receiving what we are necessitated to receive, if ever we be saved even in a Gospel-way (tho it supposeth him already crucified) he is properly called a Surety of the New Covenant, yet still connoting him a Mediator.

I need not suggest, that if in this new Covenant Christ's Suretyship will not infer our being one foederating Party with Christ, and hence that we covenanted in him; it will far less follow we did so in the Covenant of Redemption, which treated of things so improper to be once propos'd to us as undertaking Parties, much less as Principals, which to strictly legal Sureties always are supposed. But of this I have treated in Man made righteous, and in Answer to the Report, and P. S. to Gospel-Truth.

THE OTHER SIDE think Christ, with the Father's consent, came into the Covenant of Works considered as a Bond, (as unviolated say some, as violated say others) and therein became one foederating Party with us, (as Elect some say, as Believers say others) even such a Surety as made the Covenant of Works run thus: If thou Christ my Son, or you the Elect (or Believers) do obey all the Law, you shall live: But if they sin, thou or they shall die, or they having sinned, thou shalt die. And they conceiving Christ to be as a strict pecuniary Surety in this one Bond with us, they esteem him one legal Person and Representative in such a sense as that we did covenant in him, and are legally esteemed to do and suffer what he did, and not only secured of Salvation in his right, and for his sake.

This may be accounted by some a dangerous Difference, and so it were on our part, if we did not own that Christ's fulfilling of the Law was an Article in the Covenant of Redemption; and that we are as fully assured of Salvation, if we accept of Christ, as if we had covenanted in him; and that he hath engaged the Elect should accept of him, tho they did not covenant in him: and that Believers have as inviolable an Interest in the Benefits of Christ's Death, both in his right and by the Gospel-promise, as if they were legally esteemed to suffer what he did suffer. But all this we acknowledg. It would be as dangerous on our Brethrens part to say we covenanted in Christ, and obeyed in him, if they did not renounce all proud assuming Boasts, as if they were as righteous as Christ, or stood on terms with God needing no more Acts of Mercy than that one of appointing Christ to be Mediator; but after that they are on terms of strict Justice, and above Forgiveness, &c. The like Danger would ensue their Position, if they did not acknowledg the necessity of Faith to Justification, and this Faith to be always accompanied with Repentance and persevering Holiness. But our Brethren renounce the former, and own the latter.

Matters standing thus, will afford no ground to hereticate each other: We think a mediating Surety obliged in a distinct Bond to perform the utmost which our Brethren affirm Christ to have done, doth as well secure our State, and support our Faith as if in the same Bond, and better account for the sapiential Methods of Divine Government towards Man since the Fall, with God's judicial Procedures towards Man as under Gospel-offers, and his suspending Christ's merited Benefits till Men believe, as also his recorded Pleadings with Sinners. The Brethren think not that Christ did more for our Salvation than we allow, but that we did more in Christ; and thence judge our Faith more supported, and the Law of Works more honoured in their way. But did each side perceive all the aforesaid respective Ends alike provided for, and evil Consequences equally avoided, the Notion in debate could for its own sake admit no Dispute on either side. And is it not pity to hate each other for mistaking the best Scheme, to avoid the same Evils which both would prevent, and secure that same Good which both honestly aim at by their respective Hypotheses?

Forbearance is the juster in this point, because it turns upon a Solution of this Question, When Adam is called a Figure of Christ, Rom. 5. 18. is there not some disparity in their Representation of Men, as well as in those other things there instanced? Our Brethren think Christ so fully prefigured by Adam as a Representative, that we as truly obeyed and suffered in Christ, as we sinned in Adam. We think the Figure, as to Representation, is to be explained thus: As no man becomes a Sinner, or dieth, whose Depravedness and Death were not procured and merited by Adam's first Sin; and tho the Pagan Sinners who died, did not actually sin against a revealed positive Law, as Adam did, yet he was the Root of Death to them as well as to the Jews under Moses's Law: So no men are quickned, justified, sanctified, or saved, but Christ is a Root of Life, Grace, Justification, Holiness, and Glory to them (in all these by his Merits, in some also by his Spirit and Power.)

But yet we conceive Christ may as well answer Adam's Figure here intended, by our being quickned, justified, and saved by Christ's Obedience imputed to us, without our being esteemed to have obeyed and suffered in him, as Christ was condemned and died for Adam's Sins imputed to him, tho he was not esteemed to have sinned in Adam. As he was condemned by our Disobedience, so we are justified by his Obedience, viz. the first by his own Compact with the Father, the last by that and the Gospel too: He was not condemned by any imputation that made him by the Law a Sinner, unless he sinned in Adam; neither are we justified by being legally judged Sufferers or Obeyers in him. It avails not to say Christ was legally a Sinner, and yet not reputed to sin in Adam, because Christ was our Root; for tho he was our Root as to Grace, Acceptance, Pardon and Glory, and whatever else did proceed from him to us, as our Saviour; nevertheless, if he was a Sinner, he could not as to this be our Root, unless we derive Sin from him; but surely that Denomination must have its Root, not in him, but in those that were Sinners before him, and whose Sins were imputed to him: they must denominate that one legal Person into which he came, a sinful guilty Person; as he doth that one obeying, satisfying Person, into which we are admitted: (which Terms our Brethren espousing, I argue from.)

Finally, we are enclined to set the foresaid Limit to Christ's Representation by this among many other Reasons: for in that Rom. 5. 18. where Adam is called a Figure, the Death of those Heathens was merited by their own personal Transgressions as well as by Adam's Disobedience. But the Elect, even when Believers do not, merit Life by their own personal Obedience; and therefore we are not represented altogether in the same manner in Christ as in Adam.

2. From the former another point ariseth referring expresly to the Satisfaction, viz. in what sense our Sins were imputed to Christ.

One saith our Sins were imputed to Christ only as to Guilt or Obligation, to bear the Punishment which we deserved for them; which Punishments tho he obliged himself to endure in our stead to reconcile God to us, yet that did not render him a Sinner in God's account, because that Title results from the violation of the Precept abstractedly from a respect to the threatning; and conceiving he was not a Sinner in our stead, tho he suffer'd in our stead the punishments due to our sins, they think he was esteemed by God what in truth he was, viz. the holy, innocent Mediator, punishable by his own consent for the Sins he came to expiate, and were not expiable without his dying in our stead.

But our Brethren think our Sins were so imputed to Christ, as to give him the Denomination and judicial acceptation of a Sinner in the esteem of God and the Law.

Yet lest the difference should appear greater than it is, it's fit I inform you that our Brethren deny that Christ had any Sin or Defilement in him, or had any Sin of his own: they were our Sins, only imputed to him, and he was a legal Sinner by being one political Person with those Sinners whom the Law esteemed real Sinners, and condemned as such.

On the other hand, we own that (supposing the Covenant of Redemption) he was as truly obliged, and God the just Rector at as full liberty to punish him for our Sins, as if he had been reputed a Sinner: Nay Divine Justice required the inflicting those Punishments on him, if the Sinner was to be redeemed from them for his sake.

Now, Reader, can this difference justify mutual Censures or Alienation? What, is a Sinner without Filth, yea or any Fault of his own, above a Sponsor obliged to bear the Punishments of other mens Sins in the stead of the Offenders? And they who acknowledg him to be this, what less say they of him than the others mean, tho scrupulous of that harsher Denomination? At least it would appear strange to revile each other for a different explication of that Text, 2 Cor. 5. 21. he was made Sin for us. One thinks he was made a Sacrifice for Sin after the Hebrew Custom: for we find very oft the words foreign and foreign to signify a Sin-Offering as well as Sin, Lev. 7. 1, 2. and cap. 4. 28, 29, 33. And this very Apostle follows the same Usage, calling an Offering or Sacrifice for Sin foreign, Rom. 8. Heb. 10. 5. The other side will have it meant that Christ was made a Sinner, but a Sinner that's holy, undefiled, and never offended: which Notion of being made Sin is too diminutive to admit harsh thoughts of such as entertain it.

An unconcerned Observer will be apt to say, These who call Christ a Sinner are intent to renounce Socinianism; and they who call him a Sacrifice for Sin, are as sollicitous to confute Socinianism and Antinomianism too, by withholding an advantage which both these Errors receive by the use of that Word. But where's the Christian Charity or Prudence of the condemning Side, when both contend for what seems the best Defence of the Doctrine of Satisfaction? The other Phrases accounted for in the 6th Chapter, admit the same Mitigation as this, and upon the same Grounds.

3. The third point wherein there appears some difference, refers to the Doctrine of Iustification. But before I insist on this, permit me to offer a few hints.

1. Any Difference in this matter seems to proceed from want of an equal Consideration of the Covenant of Redemption, which fixed the terms of Satisfaction, and Impetration of saving Benefits, which Christ alone was thereby obliged to perform; and the Gospel-Covenant, wherein the Method of giving us a personal Interest in the Blessings impetrated by Christ is ordained. By the former, all that belongs to Satisfaction and Merit are confined to Christ, and Pardon, Adoption, and eternal Life put in the hand of our Saviour as his Reward. By the latter, a way becoming our fallen State and rational Nature, is appointed to apply to us a Right to the purchased Blessings; nor can the Scripture-Account of God's Calls, Pleadings and judicial Proceedings be explained without it. I think the not distinguishing these two Covenants, or fixing the Mind upon either of them, with too little regard to the other, contribute much to our Debates.

2. With Humility I propose to Consideration, whether such can dangerously err as to the way of Salvation, and particularly in the Doctrine of Justification, who do honestly adhere to our foregoing account of Christ's Satisfaction; and in subordination thereto, assert a Gospel-Law or Covenant, wherein is enacted a Rule by which the saving Effects of that Satisfaction are given forth: it seems to me highly improbable. For in the account given of Satisfaction, we ascribe the whole Impetration of Pardon, Acceptance, and all saving Benefits only to the Atonement and Merits of Christ, expresly excluding all our own Graces and good Works from the least place therein: And by our Judgment of the Gospel-Law, we secure the Method and Rule of the personal Application of these merited Benefits, and that conformably to the scope of the Bible in its most explained Parts, as well as in full consistency with an apt Ministry, and a judicial Sentence against impenitent Infidels, to whom those Benefits are not applied, notwithstanding Gospel-Offers.

Whereas if we conceived never so fitly and with greatest Soundness concerning the Satisfaction of Christ, and denied a Gospel-Law (or what's equivalent to it) we apprehend no small Danger inevitably to ensue; and that in no less a matter than Mens Salvation: for if this Gospel prove a Rule of Iudgment, and that Christ gives forth Pardon and such merited Benefits thereby, will not our Ministry be useless and ensnaring to Souls, which doth not explain and press the Gospel-Conditions in order to an Interest in those Benefits? And must not those secure Sinners be destroyed who submit not to those Conditions, however confident they be upon Orthodox Apprehensions of what Christ hath done to satisfy Justice, and merit eternal Life? The Boundaries therefore I would propose to my self are, that Christ be not rivalled in his atoning or meriting Performances on the one hand, nor rejected in his enacted Rules of dispensing his purchased and offered Benefits on the other: for he is truly dishonoured, and Souls undone by both. But I would not be mistaken, as if this were suggested to reflect on the Brethren who are seriously intent upon the first; for it already appears, and will be more evident that they neglect not the last, but affirm what to this purpose is equivalent to a Gospel-Law.

3. It is very evident that when Protestants express great Zeal for Christ's alone Righteousness imputed to us in Justification, against the Popish Doctrine, the generality of the Learned among them do only exclude every thing besides that Righteousness of Christ, from being meritorious of Acceptance, Pardon, Life, and any other Blessing; and from being any Satisfaction or Compensation for any Sin; affirming that this alone can atone the Anger of God, for the sake of this alone will he absolve us, and nothing below this is perfect enough for us to stand in before the Bar of his Justice. And therefore the Work of Faith it self can be no justifying Righteousness in that sense they took justifying Righteousness (all which we heartily own;) and hence they oft appropriate the justifying Aptitude and Office of Faith mostly to a Reliance on that sole meriting Righteousness of Christ, and its receiving Forgiveness, Acceptance, and a Right to Life, of meer Mercy, for the sake of Christ's alone Merits: All which is justly and truly spoken, as they accommodate it to the defence of Christ's Righteousness, as the only thing appointed or fit for the fore-described Purposes, and in opposition to the Popish Doctrine of Merit.

The Dispute they had with the Popish Church was about this meriting, atoning, satisfying Righteousness; and you I find them often propose that if the Papists would grant that this Righteousness was that of Christ alone, the great Controversy about Justification was at an end: But at the same time most Protestants, and our Homilies do fully grant, that Repentance was necessary, and required to Forgiveness, and Faith to Justification, and these Blessings promised to those Graces, tho they were not led to dispute whether these were to be called a Righteousness as qualifying the Subject on whom God's justifying Act terminated: But whether in that Act God regarded any thing as a meriting, absolving, satisfying Righteousness, any thing as a Satisfaction to Justice, any thing as an impelling Motive, or valuable Consideration, besides the Righteousness of Christ. To this their Debates were confined in their day, and this they were intent to maintain, as all Christians ought to be: Whereas the reason of debating the Name of that by which the Subject of Justification was determined in opposition to such whom God did not justify, was not so much before them as before others, of later years assaulted by such as went into another Extreme from the Doctrine of Popish Merit.

Nor was this matter otherwise stated by our able Divines who contend against such Arminians, as affirmed the Tò credere, to be our justifying Righteousness; for by Righteousness such Arminians mean the Righteousness which is part of Payment, and stands in the place of, and answers the same Ends in our Justification, as perfect Obedience served for to sinless Man; which we have before stated and renounced. Were there need, abundant Testimonies offer by which this Head is easily proved, tho I grant some Men may be found to vent some Inconsistent Expressions. Having premised these things, I reassume the Difference about Justification that seems to continue, which lies,

1. In the manner of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. Both agree it is imputed, but how, is not so universally assented to: One side thinks the sense of imputing Christ's Righteousness to be, that God reckons us to have legally done and suffered what Christ did, and this to the full Satisfaction of Justice and the Law of Works, and therefore are reputed to have perfectly obeyed the Precepts of this Law, and fully endured its Curse; and for our legally doing so, God judgeth and pronounceth us righteous in full Conformity to the Law, and therefore entituled to Pardon, Adoption, and eternal Life. If you ask, Is this justifying Sentence the Sentence of the Law of Works, viz. its premiant Sanction applied to us by God as the righteous Judg judging us by the Law of Works? They answer, It is the Sentence of the Law of Works, but it is of Gospel-Grace that God allowed Christ to be one Person with us in the Covenant of Works, whereby we are thus accounted to obey and suffer in him. But others think that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed in the following manner, viz. 1. They consider that the Father promised to Christ in Reward of his Obedience and Suffering, that they who believed on him should be pardoned, adopted, dealt with as righteous Persons who had not sinned, and be eternally sav'd: Hence the Lord Iesus has a right to Believers obtaining these things. And as Faith describes the Persons in this Covenant who shall obtain them, so when we become Believers, we are accounted and adjudged to be such Believers, and such as are to obtain those Blessings in Christ's Right.

2. They consider God in Christ for sapiential Ends, making in the Gospel an Offer of Pardon, Adoption, and eternal Life to poor Sinners if they believe, and promising these Blessings when they believe, and still as Blessings bought by Christ's Obedience and Sufferings, and promised to him for Believers; tho withal used in his Gospel as Motives to inforce his Command of Faith and Calls to it. These things thus considered, we apprehend that when God in Christ justifieth us, he doth not only give us Pardon, Adoption, and Life; but he adjudgeth and sentenceth us to be the Persons that by the Covenant of Redemption were to be pardoned, adopted and saved in the right of Christ; and to whom the Gospel by its Promise gives a personal Right to that Pardon, Adoption and Life as purchased by Christ: And he esteems and adjudgeth that the Obedience and Sufferings of Christ in their full virtue, is our pleadable Security for the enjoyment of them, whereby we have a right to plead his Death and Merits with God as what procured these for us, as well as God's Fidelity, who promised them to us in his Gospel.

You see by this account that we rise not so high as to say, we are accounted to do and suffer what Christ did, and to be absolved immediately by the Sentence of the Law of Works; nor fall we so low as a mere Participation of the Effects of Christ's Righteousness, but assert an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness it self relatively to those Effects. Christ's Right is applied, and his very Obedience reckoned to us, as what pleads with God for those Effects, and secures us against all condemning Obstacles and Challenges. The justifying Sentence is not the Sentence of the Law; God saith not, You have perfectly obeyed, therefore you shall live; you have satisfied the Curse, therefore you shall not die: Yet the Righteousness which procured our Salvation, and is our adjudged pleadable Security of enjoying this promised Salvation, includes an Obedience as perfect as that to which the Law promised Life if we had not sinned, and Sufferings equivalent to what the Curse pronounced against us when we sinned. But because we apprehend not where this Law includes such a Sentence as this, viz. because Christ obeyed, you shall live tho you obeyed not; and because Christ who sinned not, did suffer for your Sins, you shall be absolved tho you have sinned; therefore we rather conceive the justifying Sentence to be the Sentence of the Gospel-Law, yet connoting the Law of Mediation, and presupposing a Satisfaction made to the Law of Works, which we conceive to be to this purpose. Thou believing Sinner, I judicially esteem and pronounce thee to be one that I promised to my Son in the Covenant of Redemption, to pardon, adopt and glorify in Reward of his perfect Obedience to my Law, and Satisfaction to my Justice, which I acknowledg he hath performed: As also to be one of those Persons to whom I made a Promise of Pardon, Adoption and eternal Glory, when I offer'd these Blessings to all Sinners who would believe on him. Thou art therefore in the virtue of the Promise made to Christ, and the Promise made thee, adjudged to receive Forgiveness, Adoption and Glory, and to have a right to plead the Righteousness of Christ for thy safe and comfortable Enjoyment of them in the prevailing Efficacy of his Merits, who alone procured both these Blessings, and that Faith upon which thy Estate is so much altered. Charity obligeth me to think that some well-meaning Persons who talk of eternal Justification in Christ, intend no more than this Promise made to Christ in the Covenant of Redemption: and by not distinguishing between this Promise, that all who should believe on him should be justified; and that other Article, all the Elect shall believe on him (which is a distinct thing) they consider not that by the first no Man can be justified till he be a Believer; and the last Article only assures that the Elect will be Believers, and by the Consequence of the first that they shall all be justified, but yet not before they are Believers. Isa. 53. 10, 11. He shall see his Seed, and by his Knowledg (or Faith in him) he shall justify many, are not the same thing: The former ascertains the Elect shall believe, the latter that they shall be justified when they believe; nor could it be otherwise even when Christ upon the Cross paid that for the sake of which these Promises were made to him; he must then pursuant to the Compact die, that Believers might be justified, and the Elect become Believers, otherwise the Articles of the Covenant of Redemption must be altered, and not direct his engaged Performances and Rewards; nor can I chuse but wonder to see our Divines in their Dispute against the Papists proving that Justification is a forensic or judicial Act, and yet find many using terms so improper to such an Act, and omitting, yea condemning those which are proper.

But to digress no further; you see what is this part of the difference about Justification; yet remember our Brethren do not say we our selves did personally obey or suffer, or are reputed so to do, but are reputed to have done it in Christ, who was one legal Person with us in the account of the Law; nor do they deny the Pardon of Sin, but own it, whatever others think of the difficulty of reconciling such things; they do deny also that we can be said to satisfy in Christ, tho we died in him, or that we merited in him, tho he merited. Further, there's no difference about the Effects of the imputed Righteousness of Christ, nor yet about the Righteousness it self as including both his active and passive Obedience, nor the time of its Imputation, viz. when we believe.

And shall we condemn each other notwithstanding this Agreement in almost every thing besides the manner of Imputation, and this is about what God accounts us to have done in Christ, and not what Christ hath done for us? Shall Men rend each other, because one thinks there can be no Imputation beyond what he grants; the other suspects it is not an Imputation unless it be in his words; and yet both grant an Imputation effectually available to all the same real Purposes, viz. the Honour of Christ and Grace, the Accomplishment of God's Decree, and the Acceptance and Salvation of Believers, as if they had never been unrighteous, with ground of believing hopes about it equally strong and quieting?

2. The other Point undecided is, what Title or Name we should give to that Faith which is required in the Person on whom God's justifying Act doth terminate: our Brethren scruple our calling it a Qualification, a Condition or a Righteousness. Others of us think each of these properly ascribed to it, a Qualification as it distinguisheth one Man described by the Word, which declares who shall be justified, from another who, according to the Rule of the Word, and the Incongruity of the thing, is not to be justified, unless the Divine Perfections and the Methods of Grace should be reflected on; for by the Gospel-Rule he that hath not Faith is to abide under Wrath. And how unbecoming and of ill Consequence would it be to entitle a Man to Glory, and receive him to favour for Christ's sake while he rejecteth Christ, and is resolved to tread under foot his Blood, tho it's from God's Promise and not any Merit of Congruity that the Accepter of Christ should be justified? They call it a Condition, not to signify any Merit or Compensation, which they abhor, but to connote God's Offers of these Blessings to more than do accept of them, as also a Divine Authority injoyning a Compliance with the Terms on which the Blessing is offered, tho that be no more than a meet Acceptance. And to shew the manner of God's conferring them upon that Acceptation, they think it may be called a Gospel-Righteousness, not as meritorious of the Blessing, no, nor a full Conformity to the Gospel-Precept, but as it is the performed Condition of the offered Benefit according to the Tenor of the Gospel-Promise, which always supposes Christ's Satisfaction, and his paying the impetrating Price of all such offered Blessings.

And they are more induced to account the performed Condition a Gospel-Righteousness, because the Gospel so very often speaks of a subjective Righteousness in us, and denominates imperfect Men righteous so expresly with respect to that Righteousness: they also think that this cannot be from Obedience to the Law of Works unless it were perfect, which it is not, nor yet from full Obedience to the Precepts of the Gospel, which enjoyn no less as a Duty than doth the Law it self; therefore they can find no ground of that Denomination, besides a Conformity to what the Gospel-Promise appointeth as a Condition of the Good it entitles a Person to; yet still as a means of giving us in a way of governing Grace what was promised to Christ for us, as a Reward of his full Satisfaction to Legal Iustice.

But our Brethren think these Terms too high, and prefer calling Faith an Instrument, as many Protestants do, who also call it a Condition: Some chuse to call it a means, I suppose to note a physical Influence in opposition to what's moral, and expressive of any Law; both which by the way we apprehend an ascribing much more to Faith than we dare, because it makes Faith efficacious from its natural Aptitude and Activity, without a Divine Ordination of it to that end by any Promise.

The Reason of any Debate concerning these Expressions lies in this: Our Brethren consider all the Gospel-Duties and Benefits as a mere physical Order of Blessings decreed by God to the Elect; and so one is given before the other, according as the Gospel describeth that Order: We grant the said Order, and should insist on no more were not the Benefits offered to more besides the Elect, and still used as Motives to induce Men to submit to those Duties, and this by Promises of the Benefits if the Duty be performed, and Threatnings of withholding the Benefits with additional Misery to be inflicted if they be not performed, with an account of judicial Proceedings towards Men with respect to their performance or non-performance of the said official Terms. But things being thus, and so very apparently the Indications of governing Methods, and the Aptitude of our Ministry for Conversion and Perseverance so much depending upon the affecting of Mens hopes and fears; we are forced to own that the Gospel is not only a description of the foresaid Order, but that it is a Law of Grace subordinate to the Covenant of Redemption.

Yet that none may suspect the difference above what it is, I shall recite what our Brethren grant in their Declaration. They say, p. 13. We are true Owners of Iustification at the instant when we believe. P. 15. It must be said that even in foro Dei, in God's Court, and according to the Iudgment in that open Court which God hath set up in his Word; and according to the Proceedings of his Word (which is the Rule he professeth to judg Men by, and therein he keeps to the Rule of his Word; as Christ saith, I judg no Man, but the Word that I speak shall judg you, Ioh. 12. 47, 48.) God doth judg▪ and pronounce his Elect ungodly and unjustified till they believe. All these are the words of Dr. Goodwin, which they approve of, and note that he in vol. 2. of the Creatures, lib. 2. cap. 7. p. 51, to 63. proves at large, that Faith in Christ is of another kind than the Faith required by the Law of Works. They also say, p. 46. God in the Covenant of Grace freely offereth unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Iesus Christ, requiring of them▪ Faith in him that they may be saved. Note the Assembly of Divines in Westminsier, larger Catech. Q. 32. add requiring Faith as the Condition to interest them in Christ. And less. Cat. to escape the Wrath and Curse of God due to us for Sin, God requireth Faith in Iesus Christ, Repentance unto Life, &c. And in the Savoy Confession as well as theirs, Cap. 18. S. 2. The true Believer's Certainty of Salvation is not a bare conjectural and probable Perswasion grounded upon a fallible hope, but an infallible assurance of Faith founded upon the Divine Truth of the Promises of Salvation, the inward Evidences of those Graces unto which these Promises are made, &c. Of all which our Brethren have approved. To add no more, they declare p. 47. it's an Error, That continued Repentance and Holiness are not in the nature of the thing, nor by the Constitution of the Gospel, necessary to our being possessed of eternal Life: And may it not be supposed that nor is put for and? Also that necessary by Constitution of the Gospel, as distinguished from necessary in the nature of the thing: Some of them may mean an authoritative or rectoral Constitution, i. e. this Order is appointed by Christ as our Ruler, wherein he hath enacted this Connexion, and requireth our Compliance.

These things being put together, must acquit our Brethren from the imputation of rendering Faith, Repentance, or Holiness, needless or useless to Salvation, tho they scruple to call it a Gospel-Righteousness; and we hope it may encline them to a forbearance towards us, who think these Concessions contain for substance all that we intend by the Terms, Condition, and Gospel-Righteousness, which we make use of as … do more exactly, comprehensively, and to some purposes more safely express what we conceive to be the true import of these Passages when connected, and which we approve of.

Yet to put things in a fuller Light, I shall represent the matter as it stands by the forecited Passages, to all which they declare their Assent p. 63. The Brethren affirm God in his Covenant offering Life and Salvation to Sinners, and requiring Faith in him that they may be saved; and this Faith in a Mediator commanded by the Gospel (and not by the Law of Works, as Dr. Goodwin saith) with Gospel-Promises of an Interest in Christ and his Benefits, and these are made to this Faith, (as a Condition, saith the Assembly of Divines) and this in such a manner, that the Believer may have an infallible assurance of the Benefits upon an inward evidence of his having this Faith, as that Grace to which the Promise was made, wherein the said Benefits were included. And also that this Gospel includes that Word, which is the Rule of Iudgment, by which Rule God judgeth that Man (tho Elect) who hath not this Faith, to be a Christless, unpardoned Child of Wrath; and him who hath this Faith, to be a true Owner of Christ and Pardon: Also that Repentance is of such necessity to all Sinners, that it as well as Faith, is required that they may escape, and none may expect to be pardoned in a state of Unbelief and Impenitence; yea continued Repentance and Holiness are necessary to our possession of eternal Life. And all this to be necessary, not only from the nature of the thing, but also by the Constitution of the Gospel.

I apprehend this Account is so equivalent to a Gospel-Law of Grace for all its great purposes, that I shall not be offended at what name they please to give it; and did not a fear of offending them prevent me, I would prove it to be all the Law of Grace which we assert; especially if they would allow that when they say God requireth Faith, that Sinners under Offers of Life may be saved, it's upon his Throne (tho a Throne of Grace) that God in Christ requireth it, and from thence directs his Offers of Salvation to Sinners; and thence sentenceth them who live under Gospel-Offers by their asserted Rule of Iudgment.

However, we have no reason to contend, especially when both agree the Debate is about the Instrument of Donation, and the Qualification of the Subject to receive a Gift, and not about any thing that meriteth the Gift freely bestowed on God's part, and thankfully and humbly received on our part. A low degree of Charity would make allowances on both hands, when the Difference is so minute. They seem jealous of the Honour of Free-Grace (yet owning Christ's Merits:) we are for Free-Grace in opposition to all Merits besides Christ's, but not exclusively of all governing Methods in applying the effects of Free-Grace. They grant Faith in Christ is required, that we may be saved; we more expresly say, it's by a rectoral Authority: they grant it so by the Law of Works; we say it's by a Gospel positive Law, tho we grant when this positive Law requireth it, we are obliged also by the general Law of Nature to yield Obedience; yet not by the Law of Works, as specified by Adam's Covenant, which Faith in Christ was inconsistent with from the essential Nature of that Covenant▪ Our Brethren are watchful against any inherent Righteousness of man mingling with Christ's Righteousness: We, besides avoiding of that, are solicitous lest men come short of Salvation by the Righteousness of Christ, through a neglect of what he requireth in all those who shall be saved by it; and yet we declare against all things besides Christ's Righteousness to be any impetrating, satisfying, atoning, meriting or compensating Righteousness; and as Faith hath no share or place in this Office, so Christ's Righteousness, tho the sole meritorious Cause, is not that which God by the Gospel requires of Sinners that they may be saved by the Righteousness of Christ. Faith is that commanded Requisite, and no more than that; its place is thereto confined: and therefore here's no mingling of our Righteousness with Christ's, because their Use, Place, and Offices be so very distinct.

They seem most afraid of Popery and Arminianism; and therefore keep to this sense of being justified by Faith alone, viz. we are justified only by Christ believed on, or the Object of Faith only is imputed to us for Righteousness. We are truly afraid of Popery and Arminianism, but not only of these, but of Antinomianism too; and therefore are intent to maintain two great Truths included in that one Sentence, We are justified by Faith, viz.

1. That the Believer is absolv'd from Guilt, accepted into God's Favour, and entituled to eternal Life in and for Christ's Righteousness, and neither Faith, nor any Grace or Act of ours make the least recompense to God, or is the least Price or Merit of Pardon or Life, or any motive inclining divine Justice to promise or accept us into his favour, or to treat us as righteous Persons: This from our heart we own, and know that this is what sound Protestants intended by it against the Papists.

2. Yet as God promised to Christ in the Covenant of Redemption, all Belivers should be absolv'd, &c. so in the the Gospel-Offer of his Grace to Sinners, he promised to Men, that he would in and for the Righteousness of Christ, absolve, accept, treat as righteous Persons, and give eternal Life (already purchased by Christ) to every true Believer; commanding Sinners to believe, and threatning that if they believed not, they should remain condemned, yea become subject to sorer Punishments: And that he would judg them by this Gospel-Rule of Iudgment. Whence we are attentive to a second Truth, viz. That God accepts and accounteth Faith a performed Condition of this Gospel-Covenant, and upon it acquits the Sinner from the Charge of damning Infidelity, and adjudgeth the Believer, qua such, in opposition to Infidels, to be, in Christ's Right, and by his Gospel-Promise, entitled to a present personal Interest in the foresaid Absolution, Acceptance, and Gift of eternal Life; yet as procured by Christ's Righteousness alone, and applied for his sake.

To add no more, our Brethren in the Doctrine of Justification almost confine their Regards to the Satisfaction of Christ, wherein Christ transacted with the provoked Justice of God: We, besides that, consider a propitiated God in Christ applying the effects of his Redemption to Men in a Method of governing Grace, but without any real difference in the Doctrine of Satisfaction; and withal sincerely granting the Condition is performed in the Strength of Christ freely dispensed. Yet upon the whole they provide against carnal Security, and we against carnal Boasting: They are far from designing to eclipse the Glory of Christ, as King, Lawgiver, and Iudg; and we as far from intending the diminution of his Glory as a Priest. How unreasonable and unhappy would perpetuated Contests by where the Grounds pretended are of so little weight?

Thus I have insisted on what seems most like a Difference in the Doctrine of Satisfaction and Iustification. Some weak persons may think there is a great Controversy, where I see nothing worth our notice, they will say. Some think we are justified by one Act of Faith, viz. Reliance. Well, but they say justifying Faith is receiving Christ, &c. as well as a Reliance. Ay, but a Man sees only with his Eye, tho more is of the Essence of a Man: But I say no Man sees without that which is of the Essence of his Eye. Another thinks justifying Faith as such receives Christ only as a Priest; others say, it receives him also as a King and Prophet: yet the last say the convinced Sinner hath an especial respect to Christ's Priesthood as most agreeable to his present case; and the former will say its but an hypocritical Faith that receives not Christ as Prophet and King as well as Priest. Nay, its not the true Christ, the anointed Messias, who is received, unless it be as Prophet, King, and Priest, even Christ Iesus the Lord. Ay, but some say Repentance is an effect of Iustification; but there be very few of our Congregational Brethren of that mind, and I suppose they mean Works meet for Repentance, and not a change of the purpose of the heart.

Nay, but several say, Faith alone is the instrument of Iustification; others make Repentance the Condition of Forgiveness. What then? seeing the first grant there is no justifying Faith without Repentance, and the last grant the aptitude of Faith to receive and acknowledg Christ (which I suppose they mean by instrument) is far greater than Repentance. But when both sides consider Faith as an ordained Condition as well as an Instrument, they'l scarce dispute but that Repentance is a Condition of Pardon as well as Faith, unless they would agree to join them together by calling Faith a penitent Faith, or Repentance a believing Repentance; connoting at once a Sinner's purpose to return to God by Christ the Mediator, and his closing with Christ the Mediator, that he may return to God by him: tho I think the end is first agreed to, before the way or means to that end is resolved on or made use of.

Obj. But sure there is a vast difference between those who think we are justified by Faith only, and those who think we are justified by Works as well as by Faith.

Answ. 1. Not so very great; when both mean that we are justified neither by Faith nor Works, as the word justified is commonly taken: for both agree that we are absolved, accepted as righteous, and entitled to eternal Life only for Christ's Death and Obedience, as the only meriting, satisfactory and atoning Righteousness.

2. They who say it's by Faith alone that we apply this Righteousness, do also grant that Faith is not alone in the person to whom God applies the Righteousness of Christ; and when they apply it to themselves, Repentance, Love, &c. are Concomitants with Faith: And they who think we are justified by Works, as they think its God's applying Christ's Righteousness to us, and not our applying it to our selves, that is the great justifying Act; so they grant God justifieth us as soon as we repent and believe with the heart, and suspends not a justified State, till Works meet for Repentance or the Effects of Faith are produced; yea, should a man dy then, he would be certainly saved.

3. They who say its by Faith alone, acknowledg that justifying Faith will certainly produce good Works; and if good Works and persevering Holiness do not follow, it was a dead Faith; and because dead, it never was a justifying Faith, however men flatter'd themselves: Also that Mens Faith, tho not their Persons, is justified by their Works: yea the most Judicious own, that if Sin should reign in Believers, and they apostatize, they would be condemned, (tho the Promise of Perseverance make that impossible;) and therefore persevering Holiness and good Works so far continue their justification, as they prevent what would bring them into Condemnation; and Faith is the Condition of the Continuation of Justification. See Dr. Owen of Iustification, p. 207, 208, 306.

On the other hand, they who say we are justified by Works, do account Works to be no more but the executing the foederal consenting Act of Faith; and so its Faith exerting it self by various occasions: and considering that the Believer's not only forgiving his Enemies, but his persevering in Faith and Holiness, are plain Conditions in many Promises made thereto; and God pronounceth to Believers, that he will have no pleasure in any Man who drawerh back, and he shall die if Sin reigneth in him; Heb. 10. 38. Rom. 8. 13. Mat. 6. 14, 15. They conceive that by Perseverance in Faith and true Holiness, they are kept from being chargeable with final and total Apostacy, and from Obnoxiousness to the Evils denounced by the Gospel against Apostates as such, and are adjudged to be under the Influence and Safeguard of the Promises made to Believers as persevering: nevertheless they abhor a thought that Perseverance in Faith and Holiness, or any good Work, is any meriting Righteousness, or the least Compensation for Sin, or entitling Price of the least Benefit; nor exclude they the need of multiplied and continued Pardon, or make they any Blessing due of Debt; but they rely wholly on Christ's Merits for these things, as the only procuring Cause; tho they are affected and governed by these places of God's Word, which are directed to Believers as part of his Rule of Iudgment; well knowing that whatever Sentence the said Words pass in this Life, God executes in part now, and more at Death; but at the great Day it will be solemnly pronounced, and perfectly executed.

These respective Concessions duly weighed, secure those who say we are justified by Faith alone from the danger of Licentiousness; and those who say we are justified by Works also, from detracting from the Honour of Christ's Righteousness, as having the sole meriting, atoning Virtue and Efficacy in Justification; and do not only grant Perseverance, but think these conditional Promises and Comminations are apt and designed means of it, in Subjects capable of moral Government, and whose Warfare is unaccomplished.

However such different Sentiments may appear to others, I lay so little stress upon them, that I had not thought it worth my labour to have printed a Sheet against any man who confessed the necessity of saving Faith (as described in the Gospel) to Justification, (Repentance and Love still accompanying that Faith in the Object on whom God's justifying Act doth terminate) and the Uneffectualness of Faith to save any who neglected to perform good Works, and to persevere in Faith and Holiness. Such as granted but these things I had never wrote against for scrupling the conditional respect of them to the Gospel-Law. But Dr. Crisp's Notions I apprehended dangerous; and they so greatly prevailing, my Brethren thought my confuting them necessary at that time: whereas I had no purpose when I wrote against Dr. Crisp, to intermeddle with these other points; but some Congregational Brethren in their Attempts against my Book, did from a very few occasional Expressions therein, accuse us of Socinianism, Arminianism, and Popery: and that they might have some pretence to fix that Charge, they turned the Controversy into these lesser Matters, whereby I was necessitated either to insist on them (however against my Will) or else abide under the foresaid severe Imputation, to the prejudice not only of my own Ministry, but also of most of my Brethren.